4.5 Article

Probabilistic evaluation of CPT-based seismic soil liquefaction potential: towards the integration of interpretive structural modeling and bayesian belief network

期刊

MATHEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 9233-9252

出版社

AMER INST MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES-AIMS
DOI: 10.3934/mbe.2021454

关键词

bayesian belief network; cone penetration test; liquefaction potential; interpretive structural modeling; sensitivity analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a probabilistic graphical model that integrates ISM and BBN methods to predict soil liquefaction potential based on CPT. The model combines major factors triggering soil liquefaction and evaluates the rate of successful prediction of liquefaction events. It proves to be more effective compared to other methods such as logistic regression and support vector machine.
This paper proposes a probabilistic graphical model that integrates interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and Bayesian belief network (BBN) approaches to predict cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil liquefaction potential. In this study, an ISM approach was employed to identify relationships between influence factors, whereas BBN approach was used to describe the quantitative strength of their relationships using conditional and marginal probabilities. The proposed model combines major causes, such as soil, seismic and site conditions, of seismic soil liquefaction at once. To demonstrate the application of the propose framework, the paper elaborates on each phase of the BBN framework, which is then validated with historical empirical data. In context of the rate of successful prediction of liquefaction and non-liquefaction events, the proposed probabilistic graphical model is proven to be more effective, compared to logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest and naive Bayes methods. This research also interprets sensitivity analysis and the most probable explanation of seismic soil liquefaction appertaining to engineering perspective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据